Well Chazz wasn't saying they'd win the Superbowl with Alex Smith, just that they could be over 500. No amount of speculation is going to prove that statement but it seems at least possible.

Volume of speculation isn't a prequisite to proving a statement under any condition so the need to point it out here is not of significance, nor is proof of a statement being under question by any parties (prefarley)
A few are disagreeing with the outcome of the speculation, the obvious choice and the .500+ choice. Now, go put some numbers on the board so your boss gives you your chair back.

Adults are adults...we all know that part of the issue with the way teen-20 year olds drink is the fact that it isn't legal...we know that 18 year olds still get their hands on PLENTY of alcohol...and we have states where 18 was the legal drinking age for awhile. The sky will not fall.

Last edited by Farley1324; 11-26-2012 at 02:32 PM.

"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."

"Should of" is not a thing you morans. "Should've" aka should have. Get a brain.

Adults are adults...we all know that part of the issue with the way teen-20 year old kids drink is the fact that it isn't legal...we know that 18 year olds still get their hands on PLENTY of alcohol...and we have states where 18 was the legal drinking age for awhile. The sky will not fall.

Lower the drinking age, and the number of deaths on the roads will increase.

I could buy an 18 year minimum for a driver license, but probably wouldn't do that. What I would do is increase the bar that must be passed in order to acquire and hold a driver license, regardless of age. There would be written questions that, if missed, insta-failed you...none of this 70% or whatever crap. Some of those things you just absolutely have to know. There would also be practical/driving tests, and they would be much more difficult than they are currently, again, regardless of age.

"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."

"Should of" is not a thing you morans. "Should've" aka should have. Get a brain.

I could buy an 18 year minimum for a driver license, but probably wouldn't do that. What I would do is increase the bar that must be passed in order to acquire and hold a driver license, regardless of age. There would be written questions that, if missed, insta-failed you...none of this 70% or whatever crap. Some of those things you just absolutely have to know. There would also be practical/driving tests, and they would be much more difficult than they are currently, again, regardless of age.

In Ontario, we have a great way of doing it. You get your beginner's when you are 16 which is called a G1. With G1 you can't drive by yourself, and the person in the passenger seat has to be an adult. You have to do this for a year. After a year you can take the road test for your G2. When you get this, you can drive like normal, without any parent, but your BA has to be zero. After another year, you then try for your G (regular license).

If you take driver's ed, you can take the G2 test after 8 months.

It's actually a much better way of doing it than the old, drive around the block, here's your license method.

I could buy an 18 year minimum for a driver license, but probably wouldn't do that. What I would do is increase the bar that must be passed in order to acquire and hold a driver license, regardless of age. There would be written questions that, if missed, insta-failed you...none of this 70% or whatever crap. Some of those things you just absolutely have to know. There would also be practical/driving tests, and they would be much more difficult than they are currently, again, regardless of age.

Application of knowledge is different than knowledge. Some studies suggest that those more knowledgeable can be less risk-averse due to overconfidence.

I support education as a means of prevention, but that's an argument I've come across many times.

I could buy an 18 year minimum for a driver license, but probably wouldn't do that. What I would do is increase the bar that must be passed in order to acquire and hold a driver license, regardless of age. There would be written questions that, if missed, insta-failed you...none of this 70% or whatever crap. Some of those things you just absolutely have to know. There would also be practical/driving tests, and they would be much more difficult than they are currently, again, regardless of age.

Application of knowledge is different than knowledge. Some studies suggest that those more knowledgeable can be less risk-averse due to overconfidence.

I support education as a means of prevention, but that's an argument I've come across many times.

Hence the practical/driving tests. That is an application of your knowledge/ability. And not like my driving test I took when I first got my license at 16, where I never had to turn left, never had to change lanes, parallel parked behind a parked car that was the only thing on the road other than myself, and I passed despite going 21 mph over the posted speed limit.

As for being less risk-averse due to being over confident, I think that describes most drivers pretty well. They've been driving for 5, 10, 30, years, they must know what they are doing, right?

"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."

"Should of" is not a thing you morans. "Should've" aka should have. Get a brain.

Volume of speculation isn't a prequisite to proving a statement under any condition so the need to point it out here is not of significance, nor is proof of a statement being under question by any parties (prefarley)
A few are disagreeing with the outcome of the speculation, the obvious choice and the .500+ choice. Now, go put some numbers on the board so your boss gives you your chair back.

I was simply saying we could speculate all day but we'll never be able to prove it one way or another. You think it's obvious they wouldn't be able to break .500, I don't. Let's just leave it at that.

Originally Posted by ThickAsABrick

Application of knowledge is different than knowledge. Some studies suggest that those more knowledgeable can be less risk-averse due to overconfidence.

I support education as a means of prevention, but that's an argument I've come across many times.

Yep! Hence why we have a saying here about "knowing enough to be dangerous".

All Hail the Ultimate Master, "I Know More Than The Generals Do", Donald Camacho Dr. Pepper X-Ray AR-15 Trump
BRB getting Brawndo, it has what plants need
BRB Welcome to Costco, I Love You

Wow, lots of people getting caught up for violating the "performance enhancing substance" rules.
Carroll stays mum on his two starting cornerbacks. If they're suspended, they will be the 4th & 5th Seahawks this calender year to get suspended.

Patriots lost another player (DE Cunningham to join RB Brandon Bolden).

Wow, lots of people getting caught up for violating the "performance enhancing substance" rules.
Carroll stays mum on his two starting cornerbacks. If they're suspended, they will be the 4th & 5th Seahawks this calender year to get suspended.

Patriots lost another player (DE Cunningham to join RB Brandon Bolden).

Good, good.

"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."

"Should of" is not a thing you morans. "Should've" aka should have. Get a brain.

But Suh stuck his leg out intentionally, doesn't mean he was trying to nut kick him. That was an unnatural way for his leg to fling out like that as he was falling.

There's only one guy who knows whether it was intentional or not, and to my knowledge he hasn't confessed to this heinous crime.

He may have instinctively tried to keep after the QB by reaching out a leg or something, but I don't really see how anyone can imply he intentionally tried to kick him in the groin. I really doubt that's the case.

☠ By reading this post, you have agreed to my negative reputation terms of service.

There's only one guy who knows whether it was intentional or not, and to my knowledge he hasn't confessed to this heinous crime.

He may have instinctively tried to keep after the QB by reaching out a leg or something, but I don't really see how anyone can imply he intentionally tried to kick him in the groin. I really doubt that's the case.

Looked more like a leg whip trying to trip Matt if he tried to step up in the pocket. I don't think he intentionally tried to nut kick him at all, but I saw the play live as it happened and it just didn't look like a normal/natural way for ones legs to fall in the manner he was falling.

There's only one guy who knows whether it was intentional or not, and to my knowledge he hasn't confessed to this heinous crime.

He may have instinctively tried to keep after the QB by reaching out a leg or something, but I don't really see how anyone can imply he intentionally tried to kick him in the groin. I really doubt that's the case.

I vote more likely intentional than not.

"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."

"Should of" is not a thing you morans. "Should've" aka should have. Get a brain.